An attack on secularism?

[Tellos Athenaios]

So the Bible is the new Reader's Digest, then? Anyway, it depends on how the campaign is run. I mean if the Arch-Protestant is doing this in his official capacity, then time to suspend or at least discipline him. If he is doing this as a private expression of his opinion then that is okay, if somewhat awkward for those who are on the receiving end. Because in either case the proper thing to do for those receiving these bibles is to refuse them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That is an attack on secularism. Keep that religion out of that court-room.

Also, judges are supposed to be above themselves, as arbitrators of the law. It is not their place to dictate the law as they wish, they merely enforce it.

Isn't the law is only used to determine the nature of the conviction, while the judges set the sentence themselves?

In which case, we are leaving the sentencing to the personal convictions of the judge. It is only natural that their own morality will determine the harshness/leniency in certain situations. Why it is any less appropriate for a judge to draw his morality from the Bible, as opposed to other concepts of morality (say the Darwinian evolutionary view on it etc)?

So the Bible is the new Reader's Digest, then? Anyway, it depends on how the campaign is run. I mean if the Arch-Protestant is doing this in his official capacity, then time to suspend or at least discipline him. If he is doing this as a private expression of his opinion then that is okay, if somewhat awkward for those who are on the receiving end. Because in either case the proper thing to do for those receiving these bibles is to refuse them.

He is doing it as the leader of the Scottish Bible Society, so not in his official capacity. Although he appears to argue that the Bible provides the root of Scots Law, and in doing so suggests Protestant principles are institutionalised into the legal system, which would certainly not be secular. So I suppose the action itself is OK in terms of its secularity, but the motive isn't.

Although bear in mind he may well be right from a legal point of view, the Scottish legal system developed alongside the idea of the 'two kingdoms', which is not really secularism or a theocracy. It makes the church and state separate but equal, each with institutionalised powers in their own sphere. England isn't secular either though, it just uses the Erastian model, where the church is subordinate to the state.

While this all sounds a bit crazy in the 21st century, this guy is no fringe figure. He is one of the top figures on the Scots law scene, and the Queen herself is the patron of the organisation that is distributing these Bibles.

[ajaxfetish]

as opposed to other concepts of morality (say the Darwinian evolutionary view on it etc)?

Is there really a Darwinian evolutionary view on morality? What is it? I'd imagine if one were to look for a secular alternative to religion for morality, the place to look would be philosophy (specifically ethics) rather than biology.

Ajax

[Beskar]

In which case, we are leaving the sentencing to the personal convictions of the judge. It is only natural that their own morality will determine the harshness/leniency in certain situations. Why it is any less appropriate for a judge to draw his morality from the Bible, as opposed to other concepts of morality (say the Darwinian evolutionary view on it etc)?

Well, there is no morality in the 'Darwinian Evolutionary' view as it is nothing at all to do about morality, it is about evolution of the species, not magic man making things appear out of thin air.

Secular Humanism is pretty much the 'moral code' that all should aspire to and those in scientific and intellectual circles adhere to, which those in religious and those not in a religious can understand and follow its tenets.

Even then, Judge doesn't use his personal convictions in law, he uses the convictions of the land, as depicted by our system of 'common law'.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Do you really need to ask whether a theocratic principle is in line with secular principles or not?

You are not addressing the issue here. When the system gives the judge leeway in determining a sentence, why is it not acceptable for him to be influenced by Biblical principles? You would say it would be OK for him to be influenced by any non-religious source of morality I expect. Why is a belief suddenly not OK when it involved God?

Well, it isn't up to us to disprove that claim: it is up to you to prove it. So, go ahead: prove it.

Scottish law was overhauled in the wake of our Reformation in 1560. The biggest single influence came from the Dutch, since we had close commercial and religious ties with them (with them being another Calvinist country). And as I said earlier, we developed the idea of the 'two kingdoms' church/state model, and commisary courts were implemented to replace the old canon law used through church courts, and bring the law into line with Protestant principles.

Because Western law is derived from Germanic law, not the Bible. That's a bit of an overimplification, of course, but the point remains that our legal system has far more to do with naked face-painted barbarians than it ever did with the Bible.

Scots law doesn't come from Germanic law, most legal influence was from Gaelic Ireland, since the first kings of Scotland were descended from the Irish settlers of Dal Riata on the west coast. It was only after David I invited the Norman nobles in from 1124 that Germanic law had any influence. Irish law tracts do have pagan roots, but there was also a lot of Christian influence from a pretty early date compared to the rest of western Europe.

Well, there is no morality in the 'Darwinian Evolutionary' view as it is nothing at all to do about morality, it is about evolution of the species, not magic man making things appear out of thin air.

Secular Humanism is pretty much the 'moral code' that all should aspire to and those in scientific and intellectual circles adhere to, which those in religious and those not in a religious can understand and follow its tenets.

Even then, Judge doesn't use his personal convictions in law, he uses the convictions of the land, as depicted by our system of 'common law'.

Well in the God Delusion Dawkins argued that our 'morality' has an evolutionary purpose, I thought a lot of atheists would buy into that.

As for the judge, as I said the law just determines the nature of the conviction, the judge himself is given leeway in the sentencing, and the system places trust in his own morality to deliver a fair sentence. Why is secular humanist morality OK, but Biblical morality not? Secularism means the institutionalised separation of church and state, not state-enforced atheism.

[The Celtic Viking]

You are not addressing the issue here. When the system gives the judge leeway in determining a sentence, why is it not acceptable for him to be influenced by Biblical principles? You would say it would be OK for him to be influenced by any non-religious source of morality I expect. Why is a belief suddenly not OK when it involved God?

Because then it would be religious - ergo, in direct conflict with secularism. You do know what secularism is, don't you?

Scottish law was overhauled in the wake of our Reformation in 1560. The biggest single influence came from the Dutch, since we had close commercial and religious ties with them (with them being another Calvinist country). And as I said earlier, we developed the idea of the 'two kingdoms' church/state model, and commisary courts were implemented to replace the old canon law used through church courts, and bring the law into line with Protestant principles.

Is this supposed to be an argument for why biblical morality has had "a significant influence on western law"?

Well in the God Delusion Dawkins argued that our 'morality' has an evolutionary purpose, I thought a lot of atheists would buy into that.

"Buy into"? Really? Sounds like you think it's not true. Tell me, which tribe do you think would fare best, all else equal: one that thought killing each other was okay, or one that thought it was not okay? Hint: humans as a social species have always (and especially when living in smaller tribes) depended upon each other for survival.

Why is secular humanist morality OK, but Biblical morality not? Secularism means the institutionalised separation of church and state, not state-enforced atheism.

Wow. Just... wow. State-enforced atheism would be if the state tried to stop the people from believing in any god. That is not the same thing as not allowing religious people to force their religious values onto other people. Sheez.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because then it would be religious - ergo, in direct conflict with secularism. You do know what secularism is, don't you?

I know enough to know that there is no single clear idea of secularism. Considering it emerged from the call of Protestants for religious freedom, I think the view people take on the continent with laicite is in fact not secularism at all, but is instead the banning of religious beliefs (and religious beliefs only) from the political sphere. That to me is not secularism, that is just replacing one tyranny with another, from Popish to atheist tyranny, as things seem to be going on the continent.

I much prefer the Anglosphere's view of secularism, which is simply the institutionalised separation of church and state. No religion should have any privileges, or any sort of set place in the legal/political framework. Instead, when people vote, or when a judge passes a sentence, they should be free to draw on religious principles in the same way they would draw on any other sort of principles, be they Marxist, anarchist, scientific, philosophical or whatever.

I do not see why anyone should have the right to tell me my religious views cannot influence my political outlook. If that is your view of what seculairsm means, then we should really be discussing "is secularism really compatible with western views of individual liberty?".

Is this supposed to be an argument for why biblical morality has had "a significant influence on western law"?

Well if you implement a new court system to specifically to reflect Reformation principles, then yes, quite clearly, it is.

"Buy into"? Really? Sounds like you think it's not true. Tell me, which tribe do you think would fare best, all else equal: one that thought killing each other was okay, or one that thought it was not okay? Hint: humans as a social species have always (and especially when living in smaller tribes) depended upon each other for survival.

No, I don't think it's true, although I didn't set out to debate whether or not it was, I was just surprised that Beskar didn't believe in it. I read Dawkin's theories on the origins of morality, although it gets pretty random with his idea of memes to explain the development of religion, before he takes it further and tries to explain the origins of the universe and even a multiverse all in Darwin evolutionary terms, apparently for no other reason than the fact that he finds the Darwinian theory of evolution "beautiful" and appears to have an almost superstitious reverence for it.

I know he was appealing to theists who see God's order in nature and think it is beautiful, and he wanted to make an emotional appeal to the 'beauty' of the Darwinian alternative. But really, he takes it to far and he seems to start seeing evolution even in the cosmos, purely because he likes it!

He's a biologist, and he should stick to the biology.

Wow. Just... wow. State-enforced atheism would be if the state tried to stop the people from believing in any god. That is not the same thing as not allowing religious people to force their religious values onto other people. Sheez.

Banning religion from the public sphere is state-enforced atheism. You can correct me if I'm picking you up wrong, but you seem to be saying a judge can draw on his morals to give a particularly harsh/lenient sentence, unless the morals are in any way influenced by a belief in God. Why does it matter if the morals are from a belief in God or not? It shouldn't be relevant unless we are going to discriminate based on people's beliefs.

[The Celtic Viking]

Rhyfelwyr, you have just demonstrated that you don't know what secularism means, and your failure to appreciate its value suggests to me that you have never been in a position where other people would force their religious beliefs onto you. That's the beauty of secularism: it protects everyone equally, atheist and theist alike. I will say it again: you not getting to force your religious values on others is in no way an abridgement of your rights, because you don't have a right to do that. Like muslims don't have a right to tell you that you can't drink alcohol or eat pork because islam says so.

Well if you implement a new court system to specifically to reflect Reformation principles, then yes, quite clearly, it is.

I don't see that western law reflects reformation principles at all.

[Beskar]

Banning religion from the public sphere is state-enforced atheism. You can correct me if I'm picking you up wrong, but you seem to be saying a judge can draw on his morals to give a particularly harsh/lenient sentence, unless the morals are in any way influenced by a belief in God. Why does it matter if the morals are from a belief in God or not? It shouldn't be relevant unless we are going to discriminate based on people's beliefs.

State-Enforced Athiesm = Banning Churches, Actively Denouncing Religion, Tearing down Religious symbols, etc.
Examples: USSR, Communist China, etc

Secularism = Removal of Religion from the State (and vice-versus), you can still go to church, you can still pray, still have your cross necklace when appropiate, etc. You cannot get into Office and tell people they are going to hell, and put them in prison for being gay. In the same light, this applies to all religions, what you believe in your own time is nothing to do with the state, unless you try to enforce your religious beliefs onto others against their will. You can still be elected and say you are a Christian, but it doesn't affect your work in office. This allows people the freedom to practise any religion as they are not discriminated against.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Secularisation is the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward non-religious (or "irreligious") values and secular institutions. Secularisation thesis refers to the belief that as societies "progress", particularly through modernization and rationalization, religion loses its authority in all aspects of social life and governance.